Talk:Alfonso X of Castile

Sulphuric wisdom?

His wisdom was of "sulphuric quality"? What the hell does that mean?

Was wondering that myself. "Sulphuric" would seem to indicate that it reeked of brimstone — as in traditional descriptions of Hell — which nothing else in the article seems to suggest. Smerdis of Tlön 15:00, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm guessing because sulphur smells like crap, it means that he had crappy wisdom. The article does kinda describe him as eccentric. After all, he could be learned but not wise at all.-Alex, 12.220.157.93 08:51, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

It's no longer in the article. Kotabatubara (talk) 23:54, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

If that line was a direct translation from Spanish, "sulfúrico/a" denotes irascibility. Still it would make much more sense if it was paired with personality rather than wisdom.--Escorxador (talk) 17:28, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Father?

So, did this motherfucker have a father? What's up? --Sean Gray 04:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Forget it. His father was Ferdinand III. I'll add that in now. --Sean Gray 04:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Song

Blackmore's Night performs a song titled "Fires at Midnight" (on the album of the same name) and introduce it on a live album (Past Times and Good Company) by saying the song was written by Alfonso X. Not sure if that's enough of a cite to merit inclusion. Aapold 06:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Undone "King of Germany"

I undoned that he was the "King of Germany" because he was only the King of Galicia, Castile and León. The title "King of the Romans" could be hold by a King who was not King of Germany (as this is the case). --Anna Lincoln 10:49, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Anna. So, are you saying that Alphonse *was* King of Germany after all? I've been trying to understand the distinction, if any, between King of Germany and King of the Romans, but I must say I'm not making a lot of progress. Do you understand the distinction? Regards, Eldredo 17:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I have read some articles and now I think that both are almost the same (in Kingdom of Germany it says: the German state became synonymous with the Empire and in the time of the Renaissance, the "Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation" united the two concepts of empire and kingdom).

It's just that I had never heard the term "King of Germany" being used to name the "King of the Holy Roman Empire" ("Rex Romanorum"), but that's right. Change the article if you want as you did :-) --Anna Lincoln 16:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

My impression is: "Holy Roman Emperor" is different both from "King of the Romans/Rex Romanorum" and from "King of Germany" because you only get to be emperor if you're crowned by the pope in Rome. Not all the elected kings of Germany/kings of the Romans got to be Holy Roman Emperor. The distinction between "King of the Romans/Rex Romanorum" and King of Germany" is much muddier to me. I don't really care which formulation is used, but I was hoping there would be some consistent principle that would say "Everyone before 1300 was King of Germany and everyone after was King of the Romans" or something like that. I don't think I'm going to revisit any of the formulations in the articles unless some clarifying principle is discovered. Eldredo18:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, now I think that the three are different as you explained! But I have found a paragraph that could help, in es:Sacro Imperio Romano Germánico (Sacred Germanic Roman Empire), which I google-translate below:

La denominación del Sacro Imperio varió enormemente a lo largo de los siglos. En 1034 se utilizaba la fórmula Imperio Romano para referirse a las tierras bajo dominio de Conrado II y no fue hasta 1157, durante el reinado de Federico I Barbarroja, que se empezó a usar el término Sacro Imperio. Por otro lado, el uso del término Emperador Romano hacía referencia a los gobernadores de las tierras europeas del norte y comenzó a usarse con Otón II el Sanguinario (emperador entre 973 y 983). Los emperadores anteriores, desde Carlomagno (muerto en 814) hasta Otón I el Grande (emperador entre 962 y 973), habían utilizado simplemente el título de Imperator Augustus ("Emperador Augusto"). El término Sacro Imperio Romano comienza a ser utilizado a partir de 1254; y el término Sacro Imperio Romano Germánico data del 1512, después de muchas variaciones en los últimos años del siglo XV.

The denomination of the Sacred Empire varied enormously throughout the centuries. In 1034 the Roman Empire formula was used to talk about the earth under dominion of Conrado II and it was not until 1157, during the reign of Federico I Barbarroja, who began to use the Sacred Empire term. On the other hand, the use of the term Roman Emperor made reference to the governors of European territories of the north and began to be used with Otón II the Bloodthirsty (emperor between 973 and 983). The previous emperors, from Carlomagno (dead in 814) to Otón I the Great (emperor between 962 and 973), had used simply the title of Imperator Augustus (August Emperor). The term Sacred Roman Empire begins to be used as of 1254; and the term Sacred Germanic Roman Empire data of the 1512, after many variations in the last years of century XV.

As you, I think I will also consider the three to be synonyms from now on. Regards. --Anna Lincoln 20:55, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Christian and Muslim playing ouds

Christian and Muslim playing ouds, miniature from Catinas de Santa Maria by king Alfonso X.

Image of Christian and Muslim playing ouds, miniature from Catinas de Santa Maria by king Alfonso X. Feel free to insert this image into the article. Phg (talk) 20:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Love this picture! This is just a small point, but these instruments are long-necked lutes; ouds are short-necked. Eulogius2 (talk) 21:17, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

 Comment::

Prim Tambura

In my eyes, Prim Tambura in Hungary looks like a similar appearance. However, I can't yet found any sources associating two instruments. --Clusternote (talk) 06:39, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Cuando el Rey Nimrod

Hello all, I'm just wondering why the Sephardic song is included under "links". I think it's unrelated, and the claim the website makes about the text being from Alfonso's time is unsubstantiated...Should it be removed? Eulogius2 (talk) 21:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

el Astrólogo

The first paragraph of this page states that one of Alfonso's nicknames was "el Astrólogo", which is translated as "the Astronomer". It really means "the Astrologer" (obviously).Lily20 (talk) 21:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

University Founder

Took out the nonsense about him founding a university in Toledo, Ohio. As far as I know, Alfonso X didn't found any universities. Afdoug (talk) 23:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Most likely they were referring to the Escuela de Traductores de Toledo (School of Translators of Toledo). In Spain, of course.

I have included it under ==Legislative and intellectual actions==. By the way, there seems to be no English Wikipedia article for that although it does exist in several other languages

--RafaelMinuesa (talk) 02:02, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Ancestry box

I added an ancestry box which is commonly founded on all articles about monarchs and royals, including nearly all of Alfonso's predecessors and successors as King of Castile and Spain that followed, not to mention nearly all the articles on British and English royalty have ancestry boxes. User:Srnec removed it and I contest his removal. I would understand the removal if the article is too short or the ancestry is fragmented or some ancestors are dubious/non-notable but neither of these are the case. He just doesn't like the look of it, which is his own opinion. Here is what I said "Unless you have an argument that uniformly remove all ancestry boxes from every article on wikipedia or you come up with a consensus against the use of ancestry boxes in this and other articles, supported by others, I [won't] support this". Srnec said "because we don't need these things at all, there are better ways" and "for years nobody saw a need for this, so I'm removing the ancestry table: take it to the talk page, since you are the one adding unsourced information". To this, I would say I will give you twenty-nine different sources for each ancestor. If he wants to challenge something that "for years nobody saw a need for", he needs to do his part in challenging it and uniformly remove all ancestry boxes from wikipedia. So unless Srnec do this, I see no reason why Alfonso X of Castile deserves to be an exception. If not, I will revert his edit and include citations for it, seeing as how that is the only legitimate argument on his part. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 04:08, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Family tree pages is the best way to present this kind of genealogical information without (enormous) redundancy and obscure Ahnentafeln, with numbers nobody understands. These ancestry sections have crept in because nobody has the time to waste reverting them and fighting them, except on the few pages that are on the right users' watchlists. Part of the problem with creep is that it is self-justifying: "Of course every page needs one, most pages already have one! I know, I added them." Same logic used to justify putting an infobox on every page; the removal of an infobox is simply treated as vandalism.

For the record, I would remove every ancestry section and create family tree pages for famous families. As to sources, the Ahnentafeln never have them, and this may not be problematic for figures famous enough to have lunar craters to their names, but it creates problems with more obscure figures, whose unsourced Ahnentafeln can be riddled with errors or speculation. Srnec (talk) 03:52, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

This is not the case here. Is it? Nearly every ancestor except probably Isaac II Angelos's wife and maybe his parents can be attested by history. There is no good rational for you to remove a correct ahnentafel. How would like to settle this Srnec because I am not yielding to your reasonings? --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 04:09, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Both your questions I already answered.

"Is it?" No, it's not, as I said ("this may not be problematic for figures famous enough to have lunar craters to their names"). You appear to have missed my point, but by admitting that there are at least three figures who are perhaps not certain in even this Ahnentafel you help make my point.

"How would like to settle this...?" By consolidated genealogical information about families in pages about families ("I would remove every ancestry section and create family tree pages for famous families"). Srnec (talk) 19:51, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Well then get going then.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 22:11, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

If you want the damned ancestry crap, you should be the one making the proper pages instead of pasting it, redundantly, on every biographical article imaginable in the obscure form of Ahnentafeln. I don't know why you think it is my job to clean up after you, but because I'm the less pushy one I'm not going to revert you again. This page is removed from my watchlist, fuck with it as you will. Srnec (talk) 04:47, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

No one freakin told you to clean up anyone's shit. If you fucking want to remove my shit replace it with your own shit. Why do I need to live by your definition of crap? Discussion closed.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 06:08, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

You told me to: you said, "Well then get going then" [sic]. Get going at what? At instantiating my proposal!

You clearly don't understand what I'm asking for or why. I don't want to "replace [your shit] with [my] own shit", since I don't want this shit on every biographical article anyway. Why do you want to work on the harder task of putting this info on many, many pages when you could just add complete family trees to family articles (or family tree articles, since we have those too)? Why is my asking you to do less taken as my asking you to do the hard stuff? I don't want to banish genealogical information from Wikipeida, I just want it in its proper place. Anybody can already construct the family tree you want so bad from those at Elisabeth of Swabia and Ferdinand III of Castile: this information is repeated all over the place. Srnec (talk) 23:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

There is no rational for you to remove the ancestry boxes. Who cares if they are repeated all over the place? That is the point of the ancestry boxes. Why should this article be exempt from a system that is repeated every else on wikipedia including his father and his mother? The main point of this disccussion is your opinion against mine. --Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 01:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

If there is no consensus the default position is the original text, therefore you should request a third opinion by going to the appropriate wikiproject or using WP:3O. IRWolfie- (talk) 10:19, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The info does seem redundant given some of its already on the right hand side. At least the pertinant parts are, for the purpose of navigating Wikipedia - father, mother, house etc. There is certainly scope for a decent family tree though, rather than having it duplicated across every related person's page. As it stands, the info that isnt repeated on the right could be folded into the article fairly easily, if it was relevant to the current article. As I dont have the time to commit to it however, I wouldnt remove the ancestry table until the info was in a better location/format. Suggest taking it to one of the projects and see if they want to help with a wider-ranging overhaul of the ancestry tables.Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:15, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

He was interested in the military after death?

In the "Military Training" section it says: "In 1321 Alfonso traveled with Pérez de Castron on a military campaign in lower Andalusia.". His year of death is listed as 1284. What gives? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.176.151.8 (talk) 23:43, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Someone switched the number instead of 1231 they typed 1321. I corrected it. Nice catch. Thanks.--Kansas Bear (talk) 02:37, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Move?

The Spanish article is at the equivalent namespace but doesn't seem supported by any of its sources, which use "Alfonso X the Wise" or "Alfonso X of Castile and Leon".

This name certainly seems wrong: He was the 9th or 10th Alfonso of Leon and the 4th or 5th Alfonso of Castile, depending on whether or not you count Alfonso I of Aragon as a Leonnese and Castilian king. For some reason, we count Alfonso VII of León as if the king of Aragon doesn't count, then skip "VIII" to get to Alfonso IX of León and this guy, who are both numbered as if the Aragonese king did count.

I know things get murky because of the way Spanish monarchs played musical chairs with their kingdoms: "Alfonso I", "II", and "III" of Leon were actually kings of Asturias who got grandfathered in when the Leonnese kingdom started up. The 9th edition of the Britannica numbered the Castilian "Alphonses" separately; the 11th edition, which I guess is what we're following, lumps in Galicia, Leon, and Castile as "Spanish" kings, ignores Alfonso of Aragon, but then adds a Castilian king into the Leonnese list.

This might be the accepted way to do all this, given how the modern Spanish monarchs have numbered themselves, but without a move to Alfonso X of Leon and Castile we should at least have a name section to help clarify what's going on. — LlywelynII 01:00, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

I think Alfonso X of Castile is correct as it is, and this is the name used in some of the books used as sources. Would not consider Alfonso I of Aragón as king of León or Castile, in any case, a consort since it was his wife Urraca who was queen regnant. Maragm (talk) 13:11, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

The numbering is conventional, lumping all of the constituent kingdoms in the Crown of Castile together while using different numbering for Navarre/Pamplona and Aragon. Whether we like it or not we are stuck with it, even though it doesn't make sense for any specific kingdom, it doesn't include Alfonso of Aragon (whose claim is debatable), plus we now know of two additional kings, Alfonso Fruelaz and Sancho Ordonez, overlooked when this standard numbering was devised who are not accounted for. Because of the overwhelming use of this convention, when you say Alfonso X there is no question that it is this man to whom you refer. As to his description, that comes down to a combination of usage inside and outside of Wikipedia. As a general rule, Wikipedia uses 'Name # of Place' for kings, with only rare exceptions that use nicknames. Even someone as well known as Richard the Lionheart is still called Richard I of England, so we go with the standard 'Name # of Place' here too. That only leaves the question of what place. By the reign of Alfonso X, we are no longer talking about the Kingdoms of Castile and Leon and Galicia, but what came to be referred to as the Crown of Castile, and hence Alfonso X of Castile is the simple, accurate way of referring to this monarch. Agricolae (talk) 16:39, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

XII A.C.

One mention of the Cantigas is followed by "XII A.C." What does this mean? It can't be the 12th century before Christ. Kotabatubara (talk) 23:52, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Civil War section

I just edited a sentence to make clearer the apparent division of opinion about his qualities as a practical ruler. On the whole though I'd say the detail presented in this section needs more citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:86B:4A00:19AF:51C:63CD:347F (talk) 00:27, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 23 December 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure) Mattdaviesfsic (talk) 07:37, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

---

Alfonso X of Castile → Alfonso X – Per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:NCROY. 49.150.12.134 (talk) 05:40, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose - best to keep the country mentioned in the page title, for less famliar readers. GoodDay (talk) 08:15, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
• Support in line with policy and guidelines (WP:CONCISE and WP:SOVEREIGN in particular). Disambiguation is not needed here. Rosbif73 (talk) 10:06, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree with GoodDay. Dimadick (talk) 12:40, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose. If Malcolm IV was the king of Scotland, of what was Malcolm X king? Srnec (talk) 16:36, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Alfonso VII of León and Castile which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 14:34, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Date of accession to the throne

The main article says he was “king… from 30 May 1252 until his death in 1284,” yet the infobox says from June 1, 1252, which is two days after. As the Alfonsine tables created in his honor mention June 1, this should be the right date. Consequently, I’m changing the main article to reflect the infobox.

CielProfond (talk) 11:49, 26 May 2024 (UTC)